I don't see the "base" on defense Rusty. I see a couple of rocks like Vince and Mayo, and a bunch of plug ins that BB was able to mold into a defense that jelled late. Ninko and Spike could take the next step into the base, but the jury is still out on Mcourt and I think the Pats walk on Chung after this year. Deadrick, Lovie and Warren are solid, and Pryor could be solid. But the Pats will put a salary number on each of them (rightfully so) and they will leave for better deals (also rightfully so).
To think this D is moving into something special is simply false. Too many moving parts and still in transition.
I also totally disagree with your assessment of the O, and see the base on O much further developed. An OL with Mankins, Vollmer and Solder, will be elite. Cannon could be at that level in 2-3 years. Hernandez and Gronk along with Vereen and Ridley give this team an enormous amount of playmaking talent, and it will be up the McDaniels to formulate an O that takes advantage of it. Hoyer certainly could step in in the near future and manage this O to deep into the playoffs every year. Mallette has the physical tools to be very special in 3 years.
The future for this O is very bright. I simply don't see the talent on D to say their is an elite base taking shape.
Now if Ras can develop into something special and the Pats come out of this draft with 2 special D players, my opinion could change. But today, too many Gregory's, Fanene's and Allen's counted on to produce.
D still needs a lot of work. I see the O as much further along in the transition phase

well, if by white elephant you are referring to big things that need to be addressed, there's more than one. d is definitely one of them... but on this d the critical issue is not what most of you think. it's not just the players, it goes deeper than that. it goes all the way to the philosophy - bend don't break. the pats is predictable in rushing no more than three DLs on 3rd and long. that is not just a payer issue. i think this version of bdb is very passive and consistently that way, and other teams know it already. opposing o already figured out that with all the smoke and mirror, the pass rush is less aggressive than it would appear, so they can afford to be patient with regard to their WRs hitting the seams. i am not saying they should go tot he opposite, but i think they need to be less predictable. the philosophy adjustment will yield a big improvement, but not enough if the goal is to be a top 10 d. they will need more talented players. and every position on this team could use an upgrade. that said, the o has its issues too. i don't buy the best scoring offense argument. best scoring stats are useless if it can't score more well against good Ds, particularly in playoffs. there are two o issues that i think are most critical - the inability to develop a wide out threat and the inability to run the ball against good Ds. all these boil down to them being predictable on o too. in this case the root has more to do with a lack of determination to develop o capabilities outside of of their comfort zone - tb's passing down the middle. players on d and getting one wide out threat are the only issues that needs to be addressed in the draft. others can be addressed after.Posted by seattlepat70

The philosophy of the bend but don't break is one I hate and it goes way back a very long ways with BB.

If you look at When he was the Defensive coordinator for the Giants team in 1990, when they beat the Bills, it was BB and this bend but don't break philosophy that almost lost the SB for them. It was the Bills last drive and Jim Kelly was moving the ball down the field on the Giants who were in the bend but don't break defense. Parcells was getting very mad at BB for how easily the Bills were driving the ball down the field, BB was looking very nervous on the sidelines. Luckily the Giants players finally made the stop and forced the Bills into the long field goal that ended up missing. BB dodged a disaster in that game even though he had that Defense ready and played awesome up until that final drive.

So this BB defensive philosophy goes way back, I don't see it ever changing. It is amazing to look back over the years and see where it has cost or almost cost BB several key games over the year.

Actually, the elephant (doesn't have to be white) is our finesse, flawed Coltsesque offense which in turn puts any of our Ds on the field for too long or over and over in succession. Not debatable anymore, as we now know. That's really the flaw. The flaw isn't on the defensive side of the ball.Posted by BassFishing

The 31st rated defense is not a flaw? Were they unlucky when they could not come up with a big stop in 2007? Were they unlucky when they couldn't make a big stop in 2011?

I would argue that there are problems on both sides of the ball, but the D has to be put into a position to win some games too.

It's a problem. With those first two picks they can take care of a couple of issues. Harrison Smith is shooting up the charts these days. I wonder if it's due to need of the position. The Pats aren't the only team in search of a safety. Along with Smith the Pats will have a good look at Worthy, Still, Reyes at DT. Branch, Jones and Curry at DE/LB. McClellin, Brown and Hightower at LB. That's a lot. Not to mention Janoris Jenkins who depending on investigations and interviews will drop further or not. Lots to get excited about here. Maybe the Pats can knock this thing down to a baby white elephant.Posted by garytx

I don't see the "base" on defense Rusty. I see a couple of rocks like Vince and Mayo, and a bunch of plug ins that BB was able to mold into a defense that jelled late. Ninko and Spike could take the next step into the base, but the jury is still out on Mcourt and I think the Pats walk on Chung after this year. Deadrick, Lovie and Warren are solid, and Pryor could be solid. But the Pats will put a salary number on each of them (rightfully so) and they will leave for better deals (also rightfully so). To think this D is moving into something special is simply false. Too many moving parts and still in transition. I also totally disagree with your assessment of the O, and see the base on O much further developed. An OL with Mankins, Vollmer and Solder, will be elite. Cannon could be at that level in 2-3 years. Hernandez and Gronk along with Vereen and Ridley give this team an enormous amount of playmaking talent, and it will be up the McDaniels to formulate an O that takes advantage of it. Hoyer certainly could step in in the near future and manage this O to deep into the playoffs every year. Mallette has the physical tools to be very special in 3 years. The future for this O is very bright. I simply don't see the talent on D to say their is an elite base taking shape. Now if Ras can develop into something special and the Pats come out of this draft with 2 special D players, my opinion could change. But today, too many Gregory's, Fanene's and Allen's counted on to produce. D still needs a lot of work. I see the O as much further along in the transition phasePosted by rkarp

I'm sure that the Patriots are like many other teams; there has been a large turnover in players. There are some rocks, but I wouldn't say there's a definitive core...yet.

I think most of the respondents here have their heads up their arses. First, the Pats got some damn good piicks in the draft the last few years, but the moron who listed them only highlighted the "busts". Eery team makes bad picks to get the good ones. How about trading up for Mark Sanchez? Now, that is a real bust.
Also, all this talk about how bad the Pats have been. Garbage. They made it to the SB again, and is thers anyone who doesn't believe if Gronk was healthy they would have won? Let's stop the garbage and talk serious here. No way the Giants stop the offense with Grink doing his thing, and look how close the game was. Injuries are part of the game, so it is what it is. Bit all this BS about how bad they are. That terrible D, and it does need to get better, only gave up 21 points.

I think most of the respondents here have their heads up their arses. First, the Pats got some damn good piicks in the draft the last few years, but the moron who listed them only highlighted the "busts". Eery team makes bad picks to get the good ones. How about trading up for Mark Sanchez? Now, that is a real bust. Also, all this talk about how bad the Pats have been. Garbage. They made it to the SB again, and is thers anyone who doesn't believe if Gronk was healthy they would have won? Let's stop the garbage and talk serious here. No way the Giants stop the offense with Grink doing his thing, and look how close the game was. Injuries are part of the game, so it is what it is. Bit all this BS about how bad they are. That terrible D, and it does need to get better, only gave up 21 points.Posted by boomerst3

First off, the Patriots aren't a bad team. They probably have one of the top 3 best pass oriented offenses in the NFL.

Yes, they made it to the superbowl. How did the second game end again? Let's be real, it was a gift to make it to the superbowl.

Lastly, yes - who thought we were going to lose the SB in 2011 if Gronk was healthy. Funny thing is, wasn't that what many people were asking in 2007?

Granted, there are some people who think the Patriots are just terrible, but there are a few people who also think the Patriots were unbeaten in 2011. The truth prolly lies somewhere in between.

Give me a draft geared towards defense (preferably with a focus on pass rush but i'll take any defensive help) and healthy players (hoping Ras-I can stay healthy) and i'll be optimistic. Our defense got better last year (points>yards allowed) and I think we can take the next step this year.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I hope if (or when haha) we trade down, it is with a team that does not look like it has much hope for success next season. I won't lie, I was a little disappointed when I saw we traded for the Saints' first rounder last year because you know they won't stink (unless Brees goes down or something).

The defense performs consistently like a top 10 defense at certain key times, notably when a first down will get the other team's offense into field goal range in a reasonably close game, and in the red zone during a reasonably close game.

The defense performs pretty badly after the game is pretty much won, which happens a lot in Foxboro. The offense performs just as badly after the game is pretty much won. They line up in victory formation and lose 1 yard per carry.

I don't care about reporters who can't tell the difference between a game-is-on-the-line play and a game-is-about-over play. People shouldn't add these two types of situations together or else they're going to get garbage statistics.

Could the defense be better. Sure , but its not as bad as people say. We all know the stats , enough with those for know. Seasons over and I'm going on what I saw. And still seeing after watching a few over on dvr. This defense played very well at times. Lots of talent and youth here. Were a few good players away from being a top ten defense. Im hoping the focus early on in the draft is DE , OLB and S. In that order. There really has a presence lacking since Sey was traded. We need someone who will command respect. It makes a huge difference for the OLB trying to get the edge or shoot up into gaps.
The offense is absolutely stacked. It really is crazy. As is , without a lead back teams have nightmares trying to prepare for us. I think people have really underestimated the signing of Lloyd. For dirt cheap I might add. He's hungry , smart ,versatile , talented , has great hands and in the prime of his career. He'll run comebacks , quick outs , posts , crossing patterns. He'll work both inside/outside the numbers. Just a great fit here. Lloyd , Gronk , WW , A.H. are going to be unstoppable. If we can get a legit lead , 3 down back in here , teams will be at our mercy. We will be setting records , again.
I'm very happy at with what we have and have done. There's no questions about what were doing here. Were not rebuilding , not starting over. This isn't about two , three years from now. This team has the mindset of championship or bust. No reason we can't be back in the SB next year. None. I'm so excited about the next few weeks and upcoming season.

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!I like points ranking a lot more than yards, and by that measure we are mid teens on defense and top 3 on offense. Defense is young and has been taking a beating on the injury front, but ... we have lost two SBs in the last 5 years - there are 27 other teams out there that wish they could say that! And there are 31 teams that wish they could look back on a decade like the Pat's have had.And those SB losses I would lay more on the offense than on the defense. And on the bounce of the football and the will of the gods - which by the way smiled on at least one or two of our SB winning seasons as well. Tuck rule anyone? Tackle on the one yard line?Sure I hope we get a couple of big time playmakers in the upcoming draft, but ... I think we have already had a top 10 FA period, and among playoff teams probably a top 3 FA period. This team is better today than it was this time last year, so no ... the sky is not falling. Get a grip!

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!! I like points ranking a lot more than yards, and by that measure we are mid teens on defense and top 3 on offense. Defense is young and has been taking a beating on the injury front, but ... we have lost two SBs in the last 5 years - there are 27 other teams out there that wish they could say that! And there are 31 teams that wish they could look back on a decade like the Pat's have had. And those SB losses I would lay more on the offense than on the defense. And on the bounce of the football and the will of the gods - which by the way smiled on at least one or two of our SB winning seasons as well. Tuck rule anyone? Tackle on the one yard line? Sure I hope we get a couple of big time playmakers in the upcoming draft, but ... I think we have already had a top 10 FA period, and among playoff teams probably a top 3 FA period. This team is better today than it was this time last year, so no ... the sky is not falling. Get a grip!Posted by mia76

In Response to Re: The White Elephant In The Room : Myth. NE couldn't even get past the 50 yard line vs MIami at home in December before halftime. How can you say it's a great offense with the 3 and out rates over sustained periods of the game and their inablity to even produce a TD drive for entire halves? Are we really going down this road again? There were 6 or 7 games this year, not even counting the SB, where this offense didn't even get into FG range for an entire half! FG range with supposedly a kicker who has a big leg. I don't count blowouts against bad teams as what will happen in the playoffs or SB. Gronk scoring 3 TDs against a bad team is irrelevant.Posted by BassFishing

It's funny you mention that game because the win was a result of the opposite.

First of all Matt Light didn't play and Mankins was injured during this game and as a result, the Fins blitzed their azzes off.

The coaches made some great adjustments at halftime-This one can’t be overstated, the Patriots coaches did a fantastic job of figuring out what the Dolphins were doing and adjusting to it.

Look no further than Offensive Coordinator Bill O’Brien, he saw that the Pats running backs were being bowled over by the fierce pass rush of the Dolphins. So he scrapped the idea of them staying in to block and instead, went to an empty backfield and spread the Dolphins out. This in conjunction with going to the Hurry-up Offense, did two things. It allowed Brady more time to see where the pressure was coming from, and it also prevented the Dolphins from freely substituting their pass rushers and sub-packages.

The result was the Dolphins were getting gassed by the fourth quarter and their pass rush was becoming less and less effective. Brady was able to find more seams in their pass coverage and the Dolphins were forced to back off a bit with their press coverage at the line of scrimmage. It worked to perfection as the Patriots scored 27 second half points.The Pats scored on 100% of their second half possessions.

Seriously Russ, why the need to constantly bash 1/2 of the winningest team in the NFL for the past decade? You even try to find blame when they win. Why?

I am not bashing it, I am adding some actual reality to the situation in a spot on the interwebs where we have fans who simply do not get it.

If Tom Brady does 38 TDs and 10 INTs next year and looks bad again next postseason, what will your reaction be?

Who cares? Just keep rolling out the same finesse, Colts offense? If you only care about bloated stats against bad or mediocre Ds, that's your business. Most Pats fans I know don't. And please don't pretend the Dolphins game as one example is tied to Light not playing. Ludicrous counter-argument.

We saw our offense struggle mightily in halves against Buffalo, the Steelers, Giants, @ Jets, the Chiefs (!), Buffalo at home and on down the line. Even the Redskins game was bad. COlts another. The Colts!

In the Jets game, NE won 37-16, but without 3 turnovers by the D, one a Nink INT, that game isn't anywhere near that score. We could not move the ball in the first half whatsoever where Brady floated 3 dropped INTs.

My question to you is, why are so enamored with Tom Brady to the point you have to lie or shape reality in order to defend him on the internet?

Our offense isn't that good unlesss our D creates 2 turnovers+ in a game. That's pretty much the reality of this team right now. People talk about this mystery pressure Brady is under with a loaded, all start offensive cast, but if the D doesn't create 2 turnovers, our offense appears helpless at times to the move the ball.

The coolest QB on the planet 5 years ago is now under some mystery pressure? What a crock.

In Response to Re: The White Elephant In The Room : The offense scoring more than 19 points, like they did during the season.Posted by kansaspatriot

There are other good teams and well run organizations in the NFL, besides the Patriots. The 2011 team won 13 games, and made it to the SB. They came up short because they couldn't execute at the end of the game (Brady's off throw and Welker failing to come down with it), while the Giants did (Eli to Manningham).

Sure, they only scored 17 points...but they did that Gronkless. Too much criticism is being heaped on them. The 2011 Pats had a great year. I'm proud of how the team performed, even in the SB loss.

That;s a fair way to look at it and the best way to look at it going into 2012, but I'd almost rather they got blown out and the D play poorly so we can put the debate to bed, with me (and others) on the losing side.

But, the debate is still alive with others and myself vindicated behind our premises which started way back in Week 3.

Until we change our offense and run the ball more, unfortunately, we ain't winning any more SBs with it the way it is now. Not happening. We just saw why. A refusal to run and use a lead back in your starting lineup is the reason.

That;s a fair way to look at it and the best way to look at it going into 2012, but I'd almost rather they got blown out and the D play poorly so we can put the debate to bed, with me (and others) on the losing side. But, the debate is still alive with others and myself vindicated behind our premises which started way back in Week 3. Until we change our offense and run the ball more, unfortunately, we ain't winning any more SBs with it the way it is now. Not happening. We just saw why. A refusal to run and use a lead back in your starting lineup is the reason.Posted by BassFishing

I call bullsh!t on that BassFishing. We could've and should've won that game. We just came up a play or two short. To say "we ain't winning any more SBs with it the way it is now" is foolishness.

That;s a fair way to look at it and the best way to look at it going into 2012, but I'd almost rather they got blown out and the D play poorly so we can put the debate to bed, with me (and others) on the losing side. But, the debate is still alive with others and myself vindicated behind our premises which started way back in Week 3. Until we change our offense and run the ball more, unfortunately, we ain't winning any more SBs with it the way it is now. Not happening. We just saw why. A refusal to run and use a lead back in your starting lineup is the reason.Posted by BassFishing

There's absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. The Giants didn't run it well last year...Green Bay didn't run it well the year before...the Saints win over Indy had far more to do with Drew Brees, their defense, and the obligatory Peyton Manning choke, than their rushing attack...the Steelers beat Arizona based on a great defensive play by James Harrison, and some Big Ben passing heroics at the end...the Giants win over the Pats in 2007 was due to the ability of their front four to bowl over the Pats' OL, and get into Tom Brady's face.

A physical running game had nothing to do with any of the above champions winning a SB. It's a different game now...played under different rules. What worked in 2003-04 doesn't cut it any longer.

So, what worked in 2004 especially seeing how the Giants just beat the Pats in 2012 (or 2007 for that matter), doesn't work any longer? LOL!

You sure showed me, TPat.

A physical running game ABSOLUTELY won teams SBs in recent years, whether it be the Colts in 2006, Giants in 2007, Saints in 2009 or GB in 2010 with that Starks/Kuhn or Brandon Jackson as a change of pace back.

Heck, before Mendenhall fumbled in the SB vs GB, they had run amuck on their feeble run D all game long, en route to a win over GB.

And your lies will not work. Bradshaw and Jacobs were hurt for a large chunk of the season, hence why they "didn't run it well" last year. Do not lie. It will not work.

In Response to Re: The White Elephant In The Room : I call bullsh!t on that BassFishing. We could've and should've won that game. We just came up a play or two short. To say "we ain't winning any more SBs with it the way it is now" is foolishness.Posted by digger0862

I think what Rusty is saying, is that the Patriots are currently built like the old colts. They won a lot of regular season games, but didn't see much success in post-season play. There were a handful of teams back then who could beat the Colts on a regular basis; one of which were the Patriots.

Fast forward in time (after 2004). We now are the New England Colts - arguably, the top 3 pass-oriented, one dimensional offenses in the NFL. We win a lot of regular season games, and have questionable post season successs since 2005. Yes, we've made it to two SBs; and lost both of them to the Giants. Today, the Giants are to the Patriots what the Patriots were to the Colts in the past.

IMO, we are two players away from having the number 1 balanced offense in the NFL (a blocking TE made like Crumpler from 2010 and a RB like Smith or Dillon).However, our young D is perhaps 2-4 players away from having a team that can beat a team like the Giants.

I think the real question is - what kind of a team stands in the way of the Patriots winning a SB - and what do the Patriots have to do player wise to beat that kind of team.

In Response to Re: The White Elephant In The Room : There's absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. The Giants didn't run it well last year...Green Bay didn't run it well the year before...the Saints win over Indy had far more to do with Drew Brees, their defense, and the obligatory Peyton Manning choke, than their rushing attack...the Steelers beat Arizona based on a great defensive play by James Harrison, and some Big Ben passing heroics at the end...the Giants win over the Pats in 2007 was due to the ability of their front four to bowl over the Pats' OL, and get into Tom Brady's face. A physical running game had nothing to do with any of the above champions winning a SB. It's a different game now...played under different rules. What worked in 2003-04 doesn't cut it any longer. Posted by TexasPat

I think maybe we are taking something out of context. I think a different way of looking at the Patriots is: What do the Patriots have to be able to do when opponents stop our one dimensional, passing offense (via pressure on Brady and coverage of our receivers) - and the logical answer is run the ball. The other complementary to that is in those low scoring competitions, it means our defense has to change a little bit and come of with big plays - AND get off the field in a more timely manner to give our offense another go.

In Response to Re: The White Elephant In The Room : I think what Rusty is saying, is that the Patriots are currently built like the old colts. They won a lot of regular season games, but didn't see much success in post-season play. There were a handful of teams back then who could beat the Colts on a regular basis; one of which were the Patriots. Fast forward in time (after 2004). We now are the New England Colts - arguably, the top 3 pass-oriented, one dimensional offenses in the NFL. We win a lot of regular season games, and have questionable post season successs since 2005. Yes, we've made it to two SBs; and lost both of them to the Giants. Today, the Giants are to the Patriots what the Patriots were to the Colts in the past. IMO, we are two players away from having the number 1 balanced offense in the NFL (a blocking TE made like Crumpler from 2010 and a RB like Smith or Dillon). However, our young D is perhaps 2-4 players away from having a team that can beat a team like the Giants. I think the real question is - what kind of a team stands in the way of the Patriots winning a SB - and what do the Patriots have to do player wise to beat that kind of team.Posted by anonymis

I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't admit I mocked the Colts and their fans with their flawed teams of last decade. I refuse to be a hypocrite.

We are absolutely the NE Colts and it's increibly maddening considering our team was the one who completely dismantled their finesse teams!

I am not bashing it, I am adding some actual reality to the situation in a spot on the interwebs where we have fans who simply do not get it. If Tom Brady does 38 TDs and 10 INTs next year and looks bad again next postseason, what will your reaction be? Who cares? Just keep rolling out the same finesse, Colts offense? If you only care about bloated stats against bad or mediocre Ds, that's your business. Most Pats fans I know don't. And please don't pretend the Dolphins game as one example is tied to Light not playing. Ludicrous counter-argument. We saw our offense struggle mightily in halves against Buffalo, the Steelers, Giants, @ Jets, the Chiefs (!), Buffalo at home and on down the line. Even the Redskins game was bad. COlts another. The Colts! In the Jets game, NE won 37-16, but without 3 turnovers by the D, one a Nink INT, that game isn't anywhere near that score. We could not move the ball in the first half whatsoever where Brady floated 3 dropped INTs. My question to you is, why are so enamored with Tom Brady to the point you have to lie or shape reality in order to defend him on the internet? Our offense isn't that good unlesss our D creates 2 turnovers+ in a game. That's pretty much the reality of this team right now. People talk about this mystery pressure Brady is under with a loaded, all start offensive cast, but if the D doesn't create 2 turnovers, our offense appears helpless at times to the move the ball. The coolest QB on the planet 5 years ago is now under some mystery pressure? What a crock.Posted by BassFishing

You don't think Light and Mankins being out had anything to do with Brady being on his back more than a $20.00 hO+Oker? LOL.The fact remains the O made adjustments and won.The D also made some nice adjustments in the second half which contributed to them solidifying the 1st seed that day. To me, that was the best game they played as a team all year as the really showed their grit.No one is enamored with Tb (well not me anyway) There were times I wanted to ring his neck and actually thought he should have been pulled. The Buffalo game was one.My problem is, you give him almost no credit and all blame. That's ludicrous!You can also find no fault with the 31st ranked D which is also baffling.It's great they got 2 TO's a game. Isn't it their job to get the ball back?That's what a complete team does. They were great at that but not in the SB.If they had been, I think it's safe to say the outcome might have been different.All O's benefit from turn overs and all teams suffer as a result of not getting them. Not just the Pats.Why is it that nearly all the QB's the Pats played for the past couple of years, QBRs jumped 50 points above their average when they played the Pats?Was that Brady's fault too? C'mon man. Give credit where credit is due.